in Re James Calberg v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 25, 2010
• Docket: 14-10-00547-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 25, 2010.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-10-00546-CR

NO. 14-10-00547-CR

In Re James CalberG, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM  OPINION

On June 16, 2010, relator, James Calberg, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court.  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  Relator names the Harris County District Clerk and the Harris County District Attorney as respondents. 

            A court of appeals has no general writ power over a person—other than a judge of a district or county court—unless issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce the court’s jurisdiction.  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221.  A court of appeals has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk or a district attorney unless necessary to enforce its jurisdiction.  In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding); Garner v. Gately, 909 S.W.2d 61, 62 (Tex. App.—Waco 1995, orig. proceeding).

Relator has not shown that a writ of mandamus directed to the district clerk or the district attorney is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.  Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk or the district attorney.

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

                                                                                    PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Boyce.

Do Not Publish—Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).